shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527

I have heard so many cases where the defence are failing to ask forensic experts for reports to counteract Crown Office experts.

Its appears that Crown Office Experts have gone unchallenged for many years. Is this due to reluctance of the legal aid board to sanction such reports for the defence? However Crowns funds seem unlimited.

Just as a matter of interest how much legal aid is given for a murder trial and much money is alloted to get the experts needed for the defence? Does anyone have the figures?

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Scotkaz

Unfortunatley for the defence their funds are all limited.

I have no figures though.

I have heard since Crown Office have started to releaes police statements "Legal Aid Board Of AScotland" are trying to cap the legal aid for Lawyers claims to take precognitions.

The Legal aid board I am told do not want to pay for this sanction anymore, Perhaps a FOI to SLAB would clear up your questions.

I was told in 1982 that the leagl Aid Board would only sanction a few pounds which would barely cover the cost of the work my Lawyer had already done for my application for leave to appeal.

Basically I was denied access to seek a second opinion for grounds of appeal, which resulted in me having to conduct my own application for leave to appeal which in turn was refused.

If they never got you one way, they got you the other and this was to deny Legal Aid.

Verbatim · Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 7 Location: High St, Edinburgh.

The poor have never seen the same justice as the rich

We have always had two tiered justice system which has never changed for centuries.
_________________
Our Justice System is severely outdated and out of touch with reality.
Time for change.

Lydia · Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82

Sorry guys I meant to answer this post before but time has been a little short. This is a subject I find interesting.

Considering the cases that come through my organisations it seems that different people are treated in different ways by legal aid.

A father was accused of filming his daughter outside of her school, he had witnesses to prove he was in London at the time; he also had a broken leg which rendered him unable to drive. This was a father, who refused to rest when his wife disappeared with his child and every penny of family money including the funds belonging to his parents.

He has fought tooth and nail to see his child. His cousin had funded him and his legal cases but then ran out of cash to fund any more. He made his first priority contact to his child. This was a separate and criminal case, which would have seen this man refused indefinite right to remain in the country, made it impossible for him to see his child, he applied for legal aid.
He was awarded a small amount for a solicitor to look at his case but on finding the solicitor more sympathetic to the right of the mother to refuse contact, changed his solicitor. It turns out that the second solicitor must share the cost originally awarded and designated for the case.

He acted as his own solicitor and won the case.

It seems a mother who wants to refuse contact can take case after case to court such as "the father telephoned at five minutes to seven instead of seven pm".

It seems that a father cannot bring the same case even when this involves the mother not presenting the child for contact even at a contact centre.

I must admit to a little confusion.
_________________
We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Lydia

The biggest problem I see is Lawyers not utilising their funds properly.

I must give an example here:

The Fernieside Three Case is in my view a classic example for 4 Reasons.

4 Times they had Legal Aid for their cases and 4 times none one of their Solicitors asked for an independent report to challenge the Forensic evidence against them.

Their Trial Never called independent Forensic evidence.

Their Appeal never heard from any Independent Experts.

SCCRC never asked any Independent experts for Opinions, despite doing so in Megrahi and others.

Their defence teams never called any Independent experts at their Judicial Review of SCCRC decision.

Yet the Crown Expert (I am told by David) was allowed to claim it was the worse case she had ever seen, despite the police report noting her Injuries as "Minor"

Did the defence teams fear this eating at their Budget ?

Lydia I have heard the same story regarding Legal Aid in Civil cases where the first Lawyer despite him doing all the work has to share the funds which I think are capped at £500 with the second Lawyer despite him only writing maybe one letter.

The Mc'Libel case is one to look at though.

They were denied leagl aid for a claim against them from McDonalds and they lost their trial having had to defend themselves.

They then took their case to EcHR and won, Europe said they were entitled to be legally represented.

A great reference case.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

When My case went before the SCCRC the evidence relied upon for my conviction was two positive Identifications.

One the Judge described as Unreliable the other (An Off-Duty Policeman) the Lawyer noted had number 2 out his mouth at the ID Parade before turning to view the parade.

The Lawyers evidence was never heard.

SCCRC never asked any experts for a report.

When Megrahi Appealed they asked for a report despite Gauci never having Identified Megrahi Positively.

His first ID was Abu Talb and only after seeing a photo of Megrahi in the papers did he say Megrahi resembled the person (Abu Talb) but he would have to be ten years older, Not exactly a positive Identification eh ?

SCCRC asked Tim Valentine (An expert used in the Barry George case) for a report.

I wrote to the same expert and begged him to do a Pro-Bono report for me into my case and guess what ?

Yes he backs me, and finds fault with the conduct at my ID Parade with the showing of Photos and arresting officers assisting with witness's when they ought not to have been anywhere near them, and the stand-ins not resembling me, some with different colours of hair and others with a moustache etc etc.

But then again I do not have the political pressure Megrahi's case has so I was not afforded the same level of investigation by SCCRC.

They have never considered my report from Tim Valentine because they just reject my Grounds without proper review even rejected my last grounds on the same grounds they rejected my first grounds despite there being severe material differences.

____________________________

Different Rules For Different Fools

david · Joined: 01 Mar 2009 Posts: 52 Location: edinburgh

wullie

Since fighting my conviction from 2000 onwards our case has involved Nine QC's/Solicitor Advocates and six solicitors. Not once was an expert opinion obtained relating to the defence. We've been to the High Court, SCCRC and the Court of Session. I am concerned with the lack of funding and the lack of iniative shown by legal representatives regarding my case in respect that no experts have ever been used.

Legal aid for the defence is a pittance compared to the blank cheque available to the Crown and I believe this is the main reason no experts have ever been used in my case. If solicitors are spending most of the legal aid on experts, then the allowance they are left with makes it not worth their while. I have recently been informed by numerous professors that several experts could assist my case - yet not once has an expert opinion been obtained. I put that down to two factors -shameful funding for the defence and misrepresentaion by solicitors and the SCCRC.

The lack of funding goes straight through the justiciary regarding the defence. The SCCRC are underfunded and yet spend millions on the megraghi case. The other innocent people suffer because the SCCRC refuse to obtain costly expert witness statements regarding their cases. The buck stops with Gerald Sinclair who is in charge of the funding aspect. He decides how much they spend from Parliament's allocation of funds. He's either not spending it or he doesn't have it to spend.

When I obtained a 40 page legal opinion per Aiden O'Neill QC, I had to fight tooth and nail to obtain the funding to cover the cost of it. After obtaining the favourable opinion I then had to fight again to obtain legal aid cover so he could represent me in the Court of Session. 150 people marched on the Scottish Parliament because the Legal Aid Board were dragging their heels. After the protests and intervention by many scottish MSP's the legal aid was granted. Having to go through this to clear your name is disgraceful. One has to remember that only one application for funding was submitted to the Legal Aid Board to cover all three of us. It has been the same all through our campaign for justice except from our initial trial.

The funding set up in this country encourages Miscarriages of Justice because the defence don't have the means the Crown has.

David

Lydia · Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82

The funding set up in this country encourages Miscarriages of Justice because the defence don't have the means the Crown has.

David

David I agree, unfortunately many solicitors milked the system in the past and that led to the huge melt down and cutting of funds.
_________________
We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Lydia

Here is a good link to the McLibel case for future reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

A great reference for anyone also being refused Legal Aid

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

I suspect this is an issue of means for the defence but make no mistake about it the incestuous culture that inhabits the corridors of power in Scotland is also an issue.

It is of course not only a problem of forensic evidence not being used to further the defence case but also of the defence not challenging or being allowed to challenge the prosecution experts.

At present we have three experts working with in the SPSA who still maintain that the SCRO experts were correct in their erroneous identifications and yet they continue to prepare and give evidence in our courts.

There is not a snowball in hells chance of the Faculty of Advocates or the Law Society standing up to be counted and putting the interests of their members and the clients they represent before their own narrow self interest and challenging the Lord Advocate and Scottish Government who have allowed this situation to arise.

The very organisations that should be ensuring there is a level playing field for the defence in forensic matters continue to turn a blind eye.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see” appears to aptly sum up those charged with protecting our freedoms at a legal and political level . The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

Real change as opposed to the cosmetic change that is usually favoured in Scotland just doesn't happen and even bodies like the above mentioned and the SCCRC and SLCC, that should exist to challenge the system and represent the interests of the individual against the state, ultimately tend to represent their own narrow interests that are firmly embedded in a culture that few are even aware exists and those who do have no intention of changing.

The challenge is how can awarenes and change be fostered?